1) It is 20 MBytes/sec 2) 4.7 gig / 25 minutes = 3 MB/sec 3) 700 meg / 5 minutes = 2 MB/sec
So, it's about 7 - 10 times faster than writing to optical media. What's your point?
Even assuming it 20 Megabit, which it's not, it'd still be comperable to CD/DVD....And the "4 hours to write the entire drive!?" complaint is rather silly. Have you ever tried transfering 300 gig on a modern harddrive? It's within 1 order of magnitude of 20 MB/sec.
People keep making noise about Vista requiring a cutting edge video card to use the Aero UI, but what people rarely mention is that Vista will run just fine on a machine without any 3D card at all. It'll just automatically disable Aero.
So, if you've got cutting edge hardware, vista will take advantage of it. If you don't, it won't. Where's the problem?
Then the credits woulda started rolling right after the oracle told him he wasn't, halfway through the first movie, and we'd have all been spared an hour, and 2 crappy sequels.
I find that for all the advances nVidia and ATI have made over the years, 3D gaming visual quality is still inferior to cinematic quality 3D rendering... I would prefer if nVidia and ATI actually focused on bringing cinematic quality 3D rendering to gaming, instead of just claiming they do
Clearly, you misunderstand how cinematic 3D is rendered
Desktop GPUs will always be inferior to cinematic 3D, simply because cinematic 3D is rendered at a rate of several frames per day by a multi-million dollar farm of computers, while desktop GPUs must deliver dozens of frames per second all by itself.
And again -- even this much hardware generated images measured in frames per day -- nowhere near the ~24 frames per second you'd want for real-time imaging. In fact, according to pixar.com it takes 6 - 90 hours to render one frame.
Yes, you could probably re-write a lot of applications in lower level languages, and have them run twice as fast. But it would cost 10 times as much.
It's far cheaper to write applications in high level languages, and run them on today's hardware, than it is to hyper-optimize for yesterday's hardware.
DDR lets each player select their own difficulty level.
There's a open source knock off called step mania that's more feature-rich. Thousands of songs for step mania are available on the net, and you can add your own.
"I think your only legitimate statement is that Logitech claims the keyboard is useable for WoW. Other than that, using macros is a definite nono."
If you RTFA, he provides a (now defunct) link to a post in the EU forums, with a quote, in which blizzard had stated that using keyboard macro functions is okay.
"Hidden Treasures"? "mystery-lover's dream vacation"? "huge, mysterious old house with lots of long halls, secret bookcases, dark closets and creaky doors that, when you peer behind them, reveal wonderful secrets"?
Here's a hint: if you're trying to write a positive review of software, try not to use analogies that indicate that the UI is arcane and unintuitive!
8 Million * $15/month * 12 months = $1.44 billion dollars per year.
That's probably a bit on the high side, and doesn't include the box price (8 million boxes at $50 = $400 mill), but regardless, blizzard stands to pull in billions of dollars over the life of the franchise.
I heard a piece on NPR a week or two ago about whether the selling of in-game items for real-world money creates tax consequences for everyone playing the game... If you play a game and get in-game "e-gold", and that e-gold has value outside the game (as it does in this case) then the IRS may well consider the e-gold taxable income
So, if I'm playing Monopoly, and I slip the banker five US dollars for $2000 in monopoly money, are all monopoly transactions thereafter taxable?
Hell, you can buy a stack of monopoly at the toy store for a couple bucks, so monopoly money definately has a real world value!
I feel sorry for all the trees that have to be cut down needlessly so that developers can try to keep up with the latest crappy technology that will obsolete in less than 2 years.
As if the 100 romance novels published every month are any more worthy...
But when you put it online (multicasting, Bittorrent, whatever) how do you tell whats your audience? You can't track them, hackers would go insane and tear the tracking code out.
I know! Imagine if television signals were broadcast over the air, to cathode ray tube based devices with little to no digital components at all, and no way for viewing data to be sent back to the broadcaster?
Oh wait, that's the way it's worked for over 50 years. And there's a multibillion dollar ratings collection company devoted to collecting data in this sort of context.
Their first innovation? All the households they use for ratings participate voluntarily. Nielsen families *want* the broadcasters to know what they are and aren't watching.
Assuming Akamai has only 10,000 servers, that's 15 streams per server. C'mon now, we're not that stupid.
Maybe they're just short on bandwidth? 150,000 HDTV video streams is a hell of a lot of bits per second. Actually, it's 1/3rd of a terrabyte/sec, or so.
I'm willing to bet that akamai's more focused on sending large numbers of people 10k files periodically, than sending 18 mb/s video streams.
American blank CDRs that are specifically labeled for audio also have part of their purchase price diverted to the RIAA.
Specifically: "The Audio Home Recording Act specifies that royalties must be paid on blank CDs marketed for home audio recording. These royalties are placed into a pool to compensate for the loss of royalties from illegal CD duplicating."
Were the machines with wierd date stamps having hardware clock issues?
Probably more likely that they were having "moron operating the machine" issues.
At my polling place in California, which was staffed by retirement-age adults, one of the machines was "down" for the hour or so I was there.
I wouldn't be suprised if it too, was "powered down 128 times during the election" -- I think it's safe to say the sum of technical knowledge in the room didn't go much further than checking email...
Agreed, SOE probably falls into the "notorious for releasing unusable software" category.
My point was simply that the article (and many gamers) seems to assert that games should be error free, comparing the number of bugs in software to major defects in automobiles. It's an unfair, invalid, and absurd analogy.
"For some reason or another, the gaming industry has grown used to the idea that a game can ship with some bugs and that this is somehow an excusable side effect of dealing with computer software," Silverman contends.
If a CD doesn't play the last track, you go get your money back. If a DVD is missing a chapter, you go get your money back. If the display on your television doesn't work properly, you go get your money back. If a car company forgets -- I don't know, the seat belts, you go get your money back (assuming you were dumb enough to buy a car without seat belts in the first place). Moreover, if one particular company keeps releasing CDs or DVDs or TVs or cars with bugs in them, people start to avoid that company like the plague because they're releasing "incomplete" products.
Actually, more often then not, when someone releases a defective product (car, etc.), they issue a recall. Yes, this is so common, that there's a word for it. How many automotive recalls have there been? Many, to say the least. Frequently, a recall just means you bring your car back, and get whatever's broken in it fixed, and you go on with your life.
Software's even easier to fix. You don't even have to bring it back to the shop! Frequently, you can get it fixed for free, in under 5 minutes, without even getting out of your chair!
Concievably, software companys could increase their QA and/or development budgets by several orders of magnitude and iron out a few more bugs before release (or adopt a development method that avoids these sort of issues in the first place), but that cost would have to be passed on to the customer, and it wouldn't be cheap.
Yes, if a group becomes notorious for releasing unusable software, people will stop patronizing them. But a non-fatal bug here or there... who cares?
Back to the topic of writing bugless code, according to this article: "When Neumann's group worked with NASA on software for the space shuttle, developers were so careful about bugs that they produced just three lines of code per day..."
Bugless code is very expensive. Anyone who claims all software should be flawless clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
Many people have been passed over for hire for something stupid they posted to Usenet or an Internet forum. Googling a person before hire to learn as much about them as possible is standard practice these days.
That's why I post here under a pseudonym, and not my real name, Robert Ericson.
Slashdot Mirror
1) It is 20 MBytes/sec
...And the "4 hours to write the entire drive!?" complaint is rather silly. Have you ever tried transfering 300 gig on a modern harddrive? It's within 1 order of magnitude of 20 MB/sec.
2) 4.7 gig / 25 minutes = 3 MB/sec
3) 700 meg / 5 minutes = 2 MB/sec
So, it's about 7 - 10 times faster than writing to optical media. What's your point?
Even assuming it 20 Megabit, which it's not, it'd still be comperable to CD/DVD.
People keep making noise about Vista requiring a cutting edge video card to use the Aero UI, but what people rarely mention is that Vista will run just fine on a machine without any 3D card at all. It'll just automatically disable Aero.
So, if you've got cutting edge hardware, vista will take advantage of it. If you don't, it won't. Where's the problem?
What if Neo isn't the One?
Then the credits woulda started rolling right after the oracle told him he wasn't, halfway through the first movie, and we'd have all been spared an hour, and 2 crappy sequels.
Clearly, you misunderstand how cinematic 3D is rendered
Desktop GPUs will always be inferior to cinematic 3D, simply because cinematic 3D is rendered at a rate of several frames per day by a multi-million dollar farm of computers, while desktop GPUs must deliver dozens of frames per second all by itself.
A peek at what it took to render The Incredibles:
And again -- even this much hardware generated images measured in frames per day -- nowhere near the ~24 frames per second you'd want for real-time imaging. In fact, according to pixar.com it takes 6 - 90 hours to render one frame.
Yes, you could probably re-write a lot of applications in lower level languages, and have them run twice as fast. But it would cost 10 times as much.
It's far cheaper to write applications in high level languages, and run them on today's hardware, than it is to hyper-optimize for yesterday's hardware.
DDR lets each player select their own difficulty level.
There's a open source knock off called step mania that's more feature-rich. Thousands of songs for step mania are available on the net, and you can add your own.
"I think your only legitimate statement is that Logitech claims the keyboard is useable for WoW. Other than that, using macros is a definite nono."
If you RTFA, he provides a (now defunct) link to a post in the EU forums, with a quote, in which blizzard had stated that using keyboard macro functions is okay.
I played a troll priest in the first stress test, months before open beta.
So yes, it's been possible to have a troll priest since long before the game was released.
I'm sorry, did I miss the story about DVD John breaking the public key encryption model? And blowfish? And the cypher du-jour?
r ojects
He's released cracks for various pieces of software, but it's not like the guy's actually broken actual strong encryption algos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Johansen#Other_p
Flikr can handle a slashdotting.
"Hidden Treasures"?
"mystery-lover's dream vacation"?
"huge, mysterious old house with lots of long halls, secret bookcases, dark closets and creaky doors that, when you peer behind them, reveal wonderful secrets"?
Here's a hint: if you're trying to write a positive review of software, try not to use analogies that indicate that the UI is arcane and unintuitive!
World of Warcraft has about 8 million subscibers.
8 Million * $15/month * 12 months = $1.44 billion dollars per year.
That's probably a bit on the high side, and doesn't include the box price (8 million boxes at $50 = $400 mill), but regardless, blizzard stands to pull in billions of dollars over the life of the franchise.
I heard a piece on NPR a week or two ago about whether the selling of in-game items for real-world money creates tax consequences for everyone playing the game... If you play a game and get in-game "e-gold", and that e-gold has value outside the game (as it does in this case) then the IRS may well consider the e-gold taxable income
So, if I'm playing Monopoly, and I slip the banker five US dollars for $2000 in monopoly money, are all monopoly transactions thereafter taxable?
Hell, you can buy a stack of monopoly at the toy store for a couple bucks, so monopoly money definately has a real world value!
Yeah, but at least some people get off on romance novels. The same cannot be said for the computer-book-du-jour.
Speak for yourself, you insensitive clod!
The lumber industry, paper mills, and O'Reilly publishing are all it together! Create a new programming language and Presto! More revenue for all!
That explains the book on slash...
I feel sorry for all the trees that have to be cut down needlessly so that developers can try to keep up with the latest crappy technology that will obsolete in less than 2 years.
As if the 100 romance novels published every month are any more worthy...
From the "Neilsen Families" page...
"If Nielsen TV Ratings has contacted you, we hope you will participate"
If that's not voluntary, I don't know what is...
But when you put it online (multicasting, Bittorrent, whatever) how do you tell whats your audience? You can't track them, hackers would go insane and tear the tracking code out.
I know! Imagine if television signals were broadcast over the air, to cathode ray tube based devices with little to no digital components at all, and no way for viewing data to be sent back to the broadcaster?
Oh wait, that's the way it's worked for over 50 years. And there's a multibillion dollar ratings collection company devoted to collecting data in this sort of context.
Their first innovation? All the households they use for ratings participate voluntarily. Nielsen families *want* the broadcasters to know what they are and aren't watching.
Assuming Akamai has only 10,000 servers, that's 15 streams per server. C'mon now, we're not that stupid.
Maybe they're just short on bandwidth? 150,000 HDTV video streams is a hell of a lot of bits per second. Actually, it's 1/3rd of a terrabyte/sec, or so.
I'm willing to bet that akamai's more focused on sending large numbers of people 10k files periodically, than sending 18 mb/s video streams.
American blank CDRs that are specifically labeled for audio also have part of their purchase price diverted to the RIAA.
Specifically:
"The Audio Home Recording Act specifies that royalties must be paid on blank CDs marketed for home audio recording. These royalties are placed into a pool to compensate for the loss of royalties from illegal CD duplicating."
Were the machines with wierd date stamps having hardware clock issues?
Probably more likely that they were having "moron operating the machine" issues.
At my polling place in California, which was staffed by retirement-age adults, one of the machines was "down" for the hour or so I was there.
I wouldn't be suprised if it too, was "powered down 128 times during the election" -- I think it's safe to say the sum of technical knowledge in the room didn't go much further than checking email...
Agreed, SOE probably falls into the "notorious for releasing unusable software" category.
My point was simply that the article (and many gamers) seems to assert that games should be error free, comparing the number of bugs in software to major defects in automobiles. It's an unfair, invalid, and absurd analogy.
"For some reason or another, the gaming industry has grown used to the idea that a game can ship with some bugs and that this is somehow an excusable side effect of dealing with computer software," Silverman contends. If a CD doesn't play the last track, you go get your money back. If a DVD is missing a chapter, you go get your money back. If the display on your television doesn't work properly, you go get your money back. If a car company forgets -- I don't know, the seat belts, you go get your money back (assuming you were dumb enough to buy a car without seat belts in the first place). Moreover, if one particular company keeps releasing CDs or DVDs or TVs or cars with bugs in them, people start to avoid that company like the plague because they're releasing "incomplete" products.
Actually, more often then not, when someone releases a defective product (car, etc.), they issue a recall. Yes, this is so common, that there's a word for it. How many automotive recalls have there been? Many, to say the least. Frequently, a recall just means you bring your car back, and get whatever's broken in it fixed, and you go on with your life.
Software's even easier to fix. You don't even have to bring it back to the shop! Frequently, you can get it fixed for free, in under 5 minutes, without even getting out of your chair!
Concievably, software companys could increase their QA and/or development budgets by several orders of magnitude and iron out a few more bugs before release (or adopt a development method that avoids these sort of issues in the first place), but that cost would have to be passed on to the customer, and it wouldn't be cheap.
Yes, if a group becomes notorious for releasing unusable software, people will stop patronizing them. But a non-fatal bug here or there... who cares?
Back to the topic of writing bugless code, according to this article:
"When Neumann's group worked with NASA on software for the space shuttle, developers were so careful about bugs that they produced just three lines of code per day..."
Bugless code is very expensive. Anyone who claims all software should be flawless clearly has no idea what they're talking about.
For those who don't care to read through Blingo's rules, blingo works like so:
If you search during one of about 49 special time periods per day, you win.
But only your first 10 searches per day count.
Many people have been passed over for hire for something stupid they posted to Usenet or an Internet forum. Googling a person before hire to learn as much about them as possible is standard practice these days.
That's why I post here under a pseudonym, and not my real name, Robert Ericson.
Google doesn't index slashdot comments, does it?